Others v. Bharat Kumar) under Section

1. Heard Mr. Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 245 of 2019 (Registration No. 244 of 2019) (Smt. Dipti Gupta & 2 Others Vs. Bharat Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Kavi Nagar, District-Ghaziabad, whereby the trial court, while partly allowing the application filed by revisionist nos. 1 to 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to revisionist no.1 (wife) and revisionist no.3 (son) towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment i.e. 19th June, 2024.

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the trial court while awarding interim maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionist nos. 1 and 3 to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month under the order dated 5th July, 2023 as well as final maintenance allowance awarded in favour of revisionist nos. 1 and 3 to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month under the impugned judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 has committed gross in passing the same. Under the aforesaid orders, interim maintenance allowance and the final maintenance allowance have been awarded by the trial court from the date of passing of the respective orders and not from the date of filing of the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is clearly in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. 2 CRLR No. 5860 of 2024

4. On the above premise, the learned counsel for the revisionists submits that there is illegally or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State submit that since under the order dated 5th July, 2023, the opposite party no.2 is continuously paying Rs. 12, 000/- per month to revisionist nos.1 and 3 as interim maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the said order i.e. 5th July, 2023 and considering the said fact, the trial court has awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month to revisionist nos. 1 and 3 under the impugned judgment. AS such the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment in awarding the said maintenance allowance in favour of revisionist nos. 1 and 3 from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. However, they could not dispute that revisionist nos. 1 and 3 are also entitled to maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and till the date of passing of order dated 5th July, 2023 whereby revisionist nos. 1 and 3 have been awarded interim maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that before passing the impugned judgment the opposite party no.2 is voluntarily paying Rs. 22,000/- per month to the revisionist no.1 for educational expenses of his sons i.e. revisionist nos. 2 and 3 and the same may also be adjusted from the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance.

7. Except the above issues, no arguments on other issues have been advanced by any of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record including the impugned judgment.

9. This Court may record that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (Supra) has specifically observed in paragraph 89 that even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application. 3 CRLR No. 5860 of 2024

10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no. 91 has opined that the rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislation, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependent from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the concerned Court.

11. Relying upon the above observation and opinion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "102. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B - IV above."

12. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has overlooked the aforesaid settled law while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 awarding final maintenance allowance in favour of revisionist nos. 1 and 3 to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment only.

13. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 245 of 2019 (Registration No. 244 of 2019) (Smt. Dipti Gupta & 2 Others Vs. Bharat Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Kavi Nagar, District-Ghaziabad is modified to the extent that now the opposite party no.2 shall now pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the revisionist nos. 1 and 3 towards interim maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 2nd April, 2018 till the date of passing of the impugned judgment dated 19th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, awarding final maintenance allowance and thereafter he shall pay Rs. 15,000/- to the revisionist nos. 1 and 3 towards final maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment dated 19th June, 2024. Since the total amount to be paid by opposite party no.2 to revisionist nos. 1 and 3 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application i.e. 2nd April, 2018 and till the date of passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 would become very large, therefore, it would be too harsh for opposite party no.2 to pay the same in one stroke, therefore, this Court provides that the same shall be paid in 7 equal monthly installments and the first installment shall commence from 10th November, 2025. 4 CRLR No. 5860 of 2024

14. It is also clarified that if any amount towards either interim maintenance allowance or final maintenance allowance in terms of the interim order dated 5th July, 2023 or impugned judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 respectively have been paid by opposite party no.2 to revisionist nos. 1 and 3 shall be calculated and thereafter the same shall be adjusted from the aforesaid amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by this Court herein- above.

15. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

16. There shall be no order as to costs.

17. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in the Court today is taken on record. October 28, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 245 of 2019 (Registration No. 244 of 2019) (Smt. Dipti Gupta & 2 Others Vs. Bharat Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Kavi Nagar, District-Ghaziabad, whereby the trial court, while partly allowing the application filed by revisionist nos. 1 to 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to revisionist no.1 (wife) and revisionist no.3 (son) towards maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment i.e. 19th June, 2024.

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the trial court while awarding interim maintenance allowance in favour of the revisionist nos. 1 and 3 to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month under the order dated 5th July, 2023 as well as final maintenance allowance awarded in favour of revisionist nos. 1 and 3 to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month under the impugned judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 has committed gross in passing the same. Under the aforesaid orders, interim maintenance allowance and the final maintenance allowance have been awarded by the trial court from the date of passing of the respective orders and not from the date of filing of the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is clearly in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. 2 CRLR No. 5860 of 2024

4. On the above premise, the learned counsel for the revisionists submits that there is illegally or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State submit that since under the order dated 5th July, 2023, the opposite party no.2 is continuously paying Rs. 12, 000/- per month to revisionist nos.1 and 3 as interim maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the said order i.e. 5th July, 2023 and considering the said fact, the trial court has awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month to revisionist nos. 1 and 3 under the impugned judgment. AS such the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment in awarding the said maintenance allowance in favour of revisionist nos. 1 and 3 from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. However, they could not dispute that revisionist nos. 1 and 3 are also entitled to maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and till the date of passing of order dated 5th July, 2023 whereby revisionist nos. 1 and 3 have been awarded interim maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month.

6. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that before passing the impugned judgment the opposite party no.2 is voluntarily paying Rs. 22,000/- per month to the revisionist no.1 for educational expenses of his sons i.e. revisionist nos. 2 and 3 and the same may also be adjusted from the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance.

7. Except the above issues, no arguments on other issues have been advanced by any of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record including the impugned judgment.

9. This Court may record that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (Supra) has specifically observed in paragraph 89 that even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application. 3 CRLR No. 5860 of 2024

10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no. 91 has opined that the rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislation, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependent from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the concerned Court.

11. Relying upon the above observation and opinion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "102. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B - IV above."

12. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has overlooked the aforesaid settled law while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 awarding final maintenance allowance in favour of revisionist nos. 1 and 3 to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment only.

13. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 245 of 2019 (Registration No. 244 of 2019) (Smt. Dipti Gupta & 2 Others Vs. Bharat Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Kavi Nagar, District-Ghaziabad is modified to the extent that now the opposite party no.2 shall now pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the revisionist nos. 1 and 3 towards interim maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 2nd April, 2018 till the date of passing of the impugned judgment dated 19th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, awarding final maintenance allowance and thereafter he shall pay Rs. 15,000/- to the revisionist nos. 1 and 3 towards final maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the impugned judgment dated 19th June, 2024. Since the total amount to be paid by opposite party no.2 to revisionist nos. 1 and 3 towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application i.e. 2nd April, 2018 and till the date of passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 would become very large, therefore, it would be too harsh for opposite party no.2 to pay the same in one stroke, therefore, this Court provides that the same shall be paid in 7 equal monthly installments and the first installment shall commence from 10th November, 2025. 4 CRLR No. 5860 of 2024

14. It is also clarified that if any amount towards either interim maintenance allowance or final maintenance allowance in terms of the interim order dated 5th July, 2023 or impugned judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 respectively have been paid by opposite party no.2 to revisionist nos. 1 and 3 shall be calculated and thereafter the same shall be adjusted from the aforesaid amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by this Court herein- above.

15. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

16. There shall be no order as to costs.

17. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in the Court today is taken on record. October 28, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad